Connecting a DAW (audio) interface to an Apple Studio Display?

Question

robshelby Author

Level 1

7 points

Connecting a DAW (audio) interface to an Apple Studio Display?

Has anyone connected a 16+ channel audio interface to a Studio Display (usb-c)?

I usually use an Aurora Lynx but anything from MOTU, UA or SSL would likely cause any same issues.

Just wondering if anyone has had any success or failure with a setup like this?

Audio Interface (usb-c)-> Studio Display (thunderbolt)->Mac Studio

Thanks!

Asking this question because I get mixed results with different docking stations and usb-c cables.

Mac Studio (2023)

Posted on Aug 28, 2023 10:07 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Best reply

robshelby Author

Level 1

7 points

Aug 28, 2023 12:01 PM in response to robshelby

I figured this out.

The SSL doesn't like thunderbolt ports. Which is strange. None of my other interfaces care at all.

When I use the front USB-C 3.2 port, work works flawless at 16x16 24/96.

Now to break everything by creating an aggrigate device for the SSL and Cranborne to work together. lol.

Reply

Answer 2

Aug 28, 2023 10:16 AM in response to robshelby

I have a Studio Display and I use Logic Pro with a Komplete Audio 1 interface connected to it via USB-C, the Mac is reading it correctly and I can switch the audio sources from the control center.

Are you using an USB-C cable or an adapter?

Reply

Answer 3

robshelby Author

Level 1

7 points

Aug 28, 2023 11:03 AM in response to Michaelhere

Thanks for your reply!

The exact setup I had issues with was: SSL BigSix -> (anker or caldigit) thunderbolt/usbc dock -> Mac (apple silicon).

It was only the SSL that was glitching out. But worked fine when plugged directly in.

When I plugin a Cranborne R800 into the same usb input on the dock, it worked fine. Which is weird. Same bandwidth etc.

I'm testing right now and I switch with usb-c input I used on the dock and it worked fine! Possibly the firmware in the SSL just doesn't like thunderbolt and the Cranborne r800 doesn't mind.

But the reason I posted this thread is because I was also considering a dock for the Aurora Lynx setup. And if I spent all the $ on a Studio Display, and I couldn't use the usb-c adapters, I'd be really annoyed. hah.

Reply

Answer 4

Aug 28, 2023 11:29 AM in response to robshelby

I think that for audio interface, a dock is not a good deal.

For the best sound quality, go always directly in the Mac, if possible.

The audio interface is your only reference when producing/recording and the more direct is the connection the better it is!

Anyway, Mac Silicon haves some custom setting that may cause you some headache, I’ve previously purchased a “Mac friendly” adapter that were not working and when I’ve contacted the manufacturer, they tested out on the M1 and they have refunded me since the problems was not solvable :/

Reply

Answer 5

robshelby Author

Level 1

7 points

Aug 28, 2023 11:58 AM in response to Michaelhere

@Michaelhere, thanks for the reply.

But adding a dock would not affect audio quality. The "reference" would be identical. There's a small possibility that it would add a bit of latency. But unless you daisy chain many docks together, it would likely not even be measurable. Especially if the musician is receiving a direct reference from the board. Also, if you are working on something like an Air M2, there's often not enough USB slots, so there is no choice but use a dock.

There's a lot of misinformation or "incomplete" information out there.

Reply

Answer 6

Aug 28, 2023 12:55 PM in response to robshelby

When you hook up a demanding peripheral to the hub in the display, There is one thing you may have overlooked:

Thunderbolt display data uses up more than half of the available bandwidth on that ThunderBolt cable, and display data has TOP priority.

If you demand either high responsiveness or high data rates, DO NOT hook up to a Hub that has a display or a drive connected. Otherwise your DAW traffic will become 'second priority' to the other traffic.

Reply

Answer 7

robshelby Author

Level 1

7 points

Aug 30, 2023 6:01 AM in response to Grant Bennet-Alder

Thanks for the reply. In my situation, I'm currently using a display connected to the dock via the DisplayPort.

Thunderbolt 3/4 has it's own lanes for DP traffic. After 128b/132b encoding overhead and DP traffic is accounted for, I still have 18.4Gbps for everything else. 16x16 24/96 audio only requires about 36.864 Mbps of bandwidth.

If when video takes priority, it shouldn't cause any issues.

It's similar to the days of ISA and PCI. Digidesign Mix and HD cards competed with video for bandwidth. In some cases, it would also have SCSI to contend with.

It was fine.

Reply

Answer 8

Aug 30, 2023 7:33 AM in response to robshelby

<< Thunderbolt 3/4 has it's own lanes for DP traffic. >>

You are mistaken.

There are no separate and distinct data pathways for DisplayPort traffic. DisplayPort data is sent as data packets, just like all other traffic, and uses the main data pathways. There are no substantial other pathways. All data uses the main data pathways, which are limited, in the aggregate, to 40 M bits/sec on ThunderBolt 3/4.

<<. 16x16 24/96 audio only requires about 36.864 Mbps of bandwidth. >>

That is essentially the ENTIRE bandwidth of a Thunderbolt cable, about 40 G bits/sec. This suggests it is a mistake to put ANY other large data source such as a drive or a display on the same Thunderbolt cable.

Other I/O is possible at the same time on OTHER Thunderbolt cables, each of which has access to memory for simultaneous data transfer.

Reply

Answer 9

robshelby Author

Level 1

7 points

Aug 30, 2023 9:22 AM in response to Grant Bennet-Alder

https://www.thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/default/files/Thunderbolt3_TechBrief_FINAL.pdf

I think that's only true when the only thing connected is the DisplayPort. In that mode, it uses all 4 lanes.

When a DP device and a USB 3.1+ device is connected, display port uses 2 lanes.

Regardless, whether I'm interpreting that documentation wrong, the link is there for anyone to verify.

Even if I am interpreting it wrong, there is still enough bandwidth for literally 100s or 1000s of audio channels if you only have 1 monitor.

Reply

Answer 10

robshelby Author

Level 1

7 points

Aug 30, 2023 9:38 AM in response to Grant Bennet-Alder

After one DP device and overhead, there is (about)18.2Gbps available. True or false? If false, please link me to the source?

I'm confused on how this would hinder audio channels consuming 36.864 Mbps of bandwidth?

Even with the low latency requirements that I have, I have not been able to measure any latency differences between connecting the audio interface(s) directly to the computer and connected to a TB3 dock.

Reply

Answer 11

Aug 30, 2023 9:46 AM in response to robshelby

So sorry, I read your UNITs wrong.

I thought you said your DAW wanted 38.864 G bits/sec, and that would consume an entire Thunderbolt interface.

I stand corrected.

DAW wanting 38.864 M bits/sec is not a heavy load at all, even with an ordinary display on the same cable. Only a really high-resolution display might be an issue.

Reply